Pensées

Random thoughts and essays on life, religion, science, ethics, and social issues.

"Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it." - Blaise Pascal

November 28, 2005

Season of Skepticism

Here is my submission for this year to my church's locally authored Advent Devotional. I suppose it's more apologetic than devotional, but that's no surprise considering the source.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. —Luke 1:1-4

It's Christmas season again, and with it comes the inevitable garland, plastic Santas, and holiday sales. Judging by the TV programming, the public school music selections, and the lawns of most of my neighbors, it would seem to be a fully secularized holiday. The One whose birthday we once celebrated has become a non-value-added tradition of an unenlightened era.

But (faithful Christians aside) is Jesus fully absent from public attention? Not by a long shot! As "tolerant" and "inclusive" as this culture claims to be, Christmas seems to be the season of slander and skepticism. Perhaps you've caught one of the annual TV specials or news exposés on the "real" Jesus, where the media is very eager to "correct" our simplistic, "faith-based" view of the biblical stories. As Christians committed to the Truths that Luke and the other authors of Scripture have carefully and earnestly commended to us, such contrary claims should be cause for confusion, irritation, or outright anger. As one who has studied apologetics extensively, I've learned to smell a rat, and these spurious attacks on the historical claims of Christianity are particularly frustrating for me, since I know that people are being needlessly influenced by them.

I wish I had the space to deal with all of the modern accusations and criticisms against the Jesus of the Bible, but perhaps this is a case where teaching men to fish is more beneficial than just passing them out.

The first thing to notice is that this kind of scrutiny and criticism is reserved almost exclusively for Christianity. When have you ever seen an ABC special on the "real" Muhammad, or an interview with a New Age celebrity that asked hardball questions, or a Hollywood depiction of the early church in contrast to the excesses of paganism, or a news exposé on Christian martyrdom in the Sudan or China? My daughter once told me that she would believe Christianity to be true if for no other reason than for how it is singled out for persecution. Methinks they doeth protest too much.

Another thing to notice is that the complaints and alternate stories offered by the skeptics change with the seasons. What was in vogue to claim against Christianity one century or decade is passé the next. For instance, in the early 1900's some scholars attempted to argue that Jesus never actually existed as a historical character, but in light of the various extra-biblical Jewish and Roman documents found that reference Him, this theory has lost credibility. And it was once claimed that the New Testament was written one or two hundred years after Christ's death, thus giving quarter to myth and inaccuracy, but now even the most critical scholars accept that the documents were written in the lifetime of the apostles. Even the very first accusation against the followers of Jesus — that the body had been stolen — has fallen on hard times. If the skeptics could manage to find a criticism that worked, and stick with that, then it might be easier to take them seriously.

Archaeology is often brought to bear against various points of Scripture in what has not yet been found or what seems to be found to the contrary. For example, there was a time when the Hittite nation, the Davidic kingdom, and even Pontius Pilate were thought to be mythical. Later excavations of cities, tablets, and inscriptions have affirmed these and other points of biblical history. Because of the messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, and the fact that our earliest Old Testament copies dated from a thousand years after Christ, there was once speculation that it was partially authored or tampered with by the early church fathers. But the unearthing of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which date before the birth of Christ) in the 1940's put this theory to bed. Even though there are still a few open historical questions, it should be remembered that the archaeological trend is toward confirmation of the Bible.

Many of the objections to Scripture are merely based on the presuppositions of the skeptic. For instance, one of the "Christian" scholars that is regularly interviewed for these Jesus exposés is John Dominic Crossan. This fellow has gone on record as saying that he does not believe that God interferes with His creation. Consequently, he begins his analysis of the Bible with the assumption that the miracles must be mythical or allegorical, and he then sees the task of theology to peel away these "fictional" layers to get at the underlying "reality." These kinds of critics end up "discovering" a Jesus in Scripture that is made in their own image.

Conspiracy theories make up a good deal of skeptical thinking, and some of these are real doozies. It has actually been proposed that Jesus was a space alien, or the leader of a hallucinogenic mushroom cult. Only slightly more respectable are the ideas that Jesus had a secret twin brother who showed up just in time to be crucified, or that He didn't really die on the cross, He revived in the tomb and reappeared to the disciples who mistook Him for the first fruits of the resurrection. (Need I refute the idea that a scourged and crucified body could be mistaken for the "Lord of life?") Perhaps the latest theory is the re-popularized notion that the resurrection appearances were the product of mass hallucination on the part of the disciples. Now these are all interestingly imaginative theories, but unless we are given some sort of tangible evidence to the contrary, which never seems to be forthcoming, then we are justified in sticking with the unanimous testimony of those writers who had the most direct access to the facts (i.e., the authors of the Bible).

Another common ploy is to bring up meaningless associations and observations. For example, it is often noted that the story of Jesus has various similarities to other pagan mythology, or that some of the sayings of Jesus, like the golden rule, are similar to the saying of Buddha or other spiritual figures. Sometimes critics will imply that people are believers based merely on psychological "need" or because they grew up in a Christian nation. Or perhaps they will point out the numerous denominational divisions or examples of hypocrisy in the church. The world is big and history is diverse, and there are plenty of (apparent) connections to be made. But even if we grant the critics each of their observations, it is all immaterial to the point of whether or not Jesus was a historical figure who actually did those things recorded in the Scriptures.

It is probably not by force of reason that you became a believer, and without the work of the Holy Spirit even a bullet-proof case for Christianity will win no converts, but we should at least take confidence and comfort in knowing that God has not left us to the wolves unarmed.

Prayer:

Lord Jesus, thank You that You have given us such an abundant record of Your deeds and words among mankind. Thank You that we are not left to rely on our own speculations about heavenly things, and we delight that our God is a God who is sovereign over history and the men used to pen Your truths. Thank You for giving us Your Spirit to open our eyes to this truth and to hold us fast during times of trial and doubt. Thank you that we are not left unarmed to defend our conviction, but that Your words and ways have the power of truth and that history is ripe with the knowledge of it. Amen.

November 19, 2005

"No Creed But Christ"? Christ Who?

One of Chris' recent posts reminded me of a conversation I once had on-line in a chatroom with a "pastor" who was trying to give spiritual insight to the participants. I'll try to reconstruct the conversation here:

ME: "So, what denomination do you represent?"

PASTOR: "Oh, I'm non-denominational."

ME: "So, what theological tradition do you lean towards?"

PASTOR: "I'm not into all that stuff; I find that theology and denominations divide people. I just focus on Jesus."

ME: "Hmm... Okay, here's a challenge for you: Please tell me who Jesus is and what He's got to do with me without appealing to theology."

PASTOR: "Touché"

Everyone is a theologian, whether they like it or not; everyone has beliefs about God, even if it is only "that He does not exist." But in our pluralistic and "tolerant" society people need some way to buffer the differences of opinion that they feel to be detrimental to charity and Christian unity. I see 3 ways that this is often being accomplished (or at least attempted):

1) Suppression of beliefs. If you don't discuss your beliefs with others, then there is nothing about which to disagree, right? But if you think your beliefs are actually important, then how can you stay silent? Imagine believing that the atonement of Christ is God's only provision for salvation and then hearing a fellow church member say that they think earnest Buddhists are save too or that God's mercy extends even to "good" atheists. Quibbling over non-essentials or the mysterious fringes of what God's revelation includes is certainly questionable, but if we stand up for nothing, then Christianity will come to mean everything. However, people do, in fact, make distinctions (for instance, no one would agree that a "Christian" means a "pastry chef"); many just refuse to apply their discernment to a very meaningful extent. I suspect that it is simply a lack of confidence and grounding for one's beliefs that encourages silence.

2) Diminishing terms. If we take those words that are part of the vocabulary of Christianity and detach them from their definitions, then even if we do have disagreement over the meaning of these words we at least have unity in our surface language. So unity may even be had with liberals in saying things like, "I believe in Jesus," even though some may believe He is their God and redeemer, while others may believe he is just a good moral example. Or different people may speak (without qualification) of "hearing from God," though some may find His voice in the Bible, others may be referring to their personal feelings, and yet others may actually hear audible voices (from God knows where) in their heads. The extreme end of this is that we may all speak of worshipping "God" — Jews, Christians, Muslims, New Agers, etc. — and we can all blithely imagine that we are referencing the same thing in spite of the fact that each is pouring radically different content into the 3-letter string g-o-d. In fact, the term "faith" has now become the lowest common denominator of solidarity. It is enough to simply have "faith" — never mind the object of that faith. Even Oprah and secularists can get on board with this, since they can have faith in a force, love, humanity, self, or just the winds of fortune.

3) Sheer ignorance. Many people are just not knowledgeable enough about their own denomination or religion, much less anyone else's, to see those areas of conflict between them. You can't disagree with what you don't see. So if you hear a theological liberal talking about their experience of "God," or a Mormon claiming that the Bible is "inspired," then this may sound all cozy and orthodox if you don't understand what is really meant by such language. Even worse, some may come to confuse the incidental outward trappings with the meaningful underlying differences. I once heard a newscaster condescending to explain the difference between Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church merely in terms of icon use and their distinctions in making the sign of the cross. Some would even suggest that we divest ourselves of those dogmas and details which may be cause for disunity. As one fellow pointed out to me when attempting to rationalize his anemic brand of Christianity, "Didn't Jesus say that the really important thing was to just love God and your neighbor?" Sure, but now we need to know who God is and exactly what it means to love Him and other people. And the theological game is back on again.

In the end, everyone has doctrines, or at least limits to what they will tolerate in other's beliefs. While one person may draw the line at belief in a God, another may draw it at belief in a personal god, and another at Jesus as God, while yet another may draw the line at faith in this Jesus alone for salvation. It is simply a matter of knowledge and conviction that serves to set the boundaries of division and discernment. So let us give up the charade of ecumenism and get on with the tasks of study and conversation.

November 16, 2005

NPR Exorcises Jesus from Narnia

Yesterday I was listening to NPR (National Public Radio), and they did a short segment on the upcoming Narnia movie (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe). The lady setting up the piece made the most inexplicable comment. In reference to the lion, Aslan, she said that "some people take him to represent Jesus, but C.S. Lewis never made that claim," thus implying that, in her opinion, this is a spurious connection.

First of all, I think that it is the case that Lewis has formally made the connection. (I have found at least one quote to that effect in a cursory search.) He has absolutely affirmed that the entire series is Christian allegory. In fact, J.R.R. Tolkien scolded Lewis after reading LWW for having packed it with too many symbolic elements. So, do we suppose that Aslan, one of the main characters in all the books, could have escaped being ascribed some important allegorical roll?

Let's see, Aslan is involved in the creation of Narnia, he is the absolute lord over it, lives in a faraway land with an unseen "Father," gives himself up (for the sake of a sinful character) to be tormented and killed by the enemy, "resurrects" and casts out the evil overlord (White Witch), is a help in desperate times, and comes at the end of the Narnian world to bring justice and judgment. Hmm...what could he possibly represent?

Even if Lewis had never spoken of the symbolism it would not matter. If I silently don my raincoat and umbrella I do not have to tell you that it is for the sake of staying dry for you to know my purpose. Any Christian with a basic understanding of his Bible is going to spot the connections. This NPR correspondent is either too ignorant of Christianity and C.S. Lewis to understand the connection or she is simply exercising some agenda.

But what the heck could be the reason for wanting to downplay the theological connection? It is Lewis' story after all, and he was deeply Christian — a hero of the faith in fact — worse, a Christian apologist. Why should the raw data concern this lady? It is not as though the mere allegory proves Christianity to be true. Now, I have my ideas on this, but I'd much rather hear some feedback from my readers.

November 12, 2005

Is Homosexuality a Dysfunction?

(The following is an excerpt from an exchanged I had relating to an article on a gay high school in New York. My response to one of the accusations follows.)

Accusation:

"No one knows yet if homosexuality is genetic or not so for you to say it's a psychological dysfunction is just as insane as anyone saying it's genetic. You have no evidence to support your theory either."

My response:

You seem to be affirming that the genetic link has not been successfully made. I commend you on your honesty and understanding here. So many people blindly swallow the media rhetoric that it has indeed been proven. In fact, the claim, "God made me this way," rests on this spurious conclusion. In light of the idea that "no one knows the facts in this area," it is interesting that gay advocates are willing to reshape society's sexual and marital norms so readily. Ambiguity does not necessarily deliver a victory to this novel ethic, and reshaping our culture is not taking the "neutral" position.

"Dysfunction" is a matter of exception to the "normal" development or behavior of an individual. Since God (or "nature," if you're an atheist) has equipped us to produce and rear children in a male-female context, and most would affirm that this should be a "loving" environment, then "normal" should be whatever that arrangement produces on average. And who will say that it is not "best" for a child to have both an attentive and committed man and woman participate in the child's upbringing. To say otherwise seems a bit sexist and ignores the many supporting studies to the contrary. All this is to say that where love, attention, and/or the mother-father model are absent, we can expect exceptions to occur, i.e., dysfunction or pathologies. These variables would be considered "environmental" or "social" factors.

To say that there is no evidence to support conclusions for dysfunction is to ignore what the "gay gene" studies actually have been successful in concluding. Let's hear what some of the experts are telling us about this condition:

The Royal College of Psychiatrists concludes that "gender identity" disorders "are developmental," and "involve psychological, biological, family and social issues."(http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0402.htm)

"Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors." (Steven Goldberg, Ph.D. (1994) When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books)

"There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic—and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public." (Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, p.8.)

When "gay gene" researcher Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he himself replied, "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors." ("Gay Genes, Revisited: Doubts arise over research on the biology of homosexuality," Scientific American, November 1995, P. 26.)

And even the notorious Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) tells us in a pamphlet:"To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date...sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors."[My note: it is rather silly for them to say that no genetic link has been found on the one hand, yet on the other hand to include biological factors in what it is "undoubtedly influenced by." My point, though, is that even this gay propaganda machine admits that the only thing that is known is the social factor.]

To this I would add the following observation regarding Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard's famous "twin study." While this study has been swamped in controversy, and has been challenged by subsequent studies (Bailey was, himself, unable to reproduce these high numbers in a later, more comprehensive study), it will serve my purpose as a best-case scenario for the "gay gene" theory (these researchers are friendly to the gay-gene thesis, and observations regarding twins are some of the most tangible and easily grasped comparisons). First, note the following statistics from this study:

52 percent of the identical twins were both gay

22 percent of the fraternal twins were both gay

9 percent of the non-twin brothers were both gay

11 percent of the adopted, or genetically unrelated brothers were both gay

This outcome has been seen as suggestive of a genetic link. After all, there's a higher percentage for the identicals than for the siblings sharing lesser genetic material. However, if we look closer we see inconsistencies and strong indicators for environmental factors. First, 50/50 odds are pretty bad for identical DNA. This suggests that the genetic factor (assuming it is there) is not determinative (meaning it doesn't force the condition) and that it can be substantially overridden either by environmental or personal factors. Second, fraternal twins and non-twin brothers are genetically equivalent, but here we see that the figures are substantially different for each group. This suggests environmental dominance, since the unique common denominator with the fraternals is their closely shared upbringing. Third, we should expect to see the figure for adopted siblings to be lower than for any of the direct blood relations, yet it is actually higher than the non-twin brothers! Indeed, the adopted siblings should be expected to fall near the population average for homosexuality, yet they are several times higher than this (2-3 percent is the recognized average). Something is going on in these families that is increasing the odds of homosexual expression in these children.

From every quarter, researchers admit that even if there could be said to be a genetic connection there are still environmental factors involved. Here is what we are left with: genetic factors are possible, but not yet demonstrated, but environmental factors are known to be involved. In light of this, it is curious that the research activity leans toward gene studies at the expense of the environmental ones, yet environmental conditions are things we might actually hope to affect. I smell an agenda, and the researchers Bailey & Pillard are candid enough to tell us why: "If true, a biological explanation is good news for homosexuals and their advocates." But why the heck would that be good new? Would it be "good news" to find out that most lung cancer is a matter of genetics, which can't be easily changed, versus smoking, which one has opportunity to mitigate? There seems to be an a priori commitment to justifying the homosexual "orientation" rather than simply getting to the bottom of the what and why of it. But, of course, that is the approach of a bygone era of psychiatric science not driven by political correctness and advocacy.

So, what can we say about the environmental factors. Do we imagine that they are "good" influences, like having doting parents and a first-class education — that homosexuality is the result of an ideal upbringing? Is the best product of the child-rearing enterprise, in fact, a homosexual? Or, do we discover, as observations do seem to indicate, that it is a matter of less than ideal childhood experiences? Homosexuality, regardless of the "unknown" genetic component, seems to be influenced by negative environmental factors. This implies that those who are victim of this situation are being adversely affected. And this defines psychological dysfunction. It may be a pathology that the victim doesn't mind, or admit (like alcoholism, which supplies the addict with some positive reinforcement), but it is a pathology nonetheless.

And what do we do with pathologies? Do we affirm them and celebrate them? Do we consider them normative and of equal standing to all other behaviors? Do we reengineer society to conform to their particular idiosyncrasies? Of course not! But neither should we denigrate the intrinsic value of the affected persons. The sin is not in being victim of the environmental influences, or even the possible biological contributors; the sin is in pursuing the symptoms, celebrating the condition, rationalizing its merit, and insisting that society give hearty approval to those who do so.

November 11, 2005

Abiogenesis: Leftovers

(Here are some additional quotes that I encountered, which didn't make it into my abiogenesis article. I've also included images to illustrate some of the biochemical complexities I've discussed.)

"The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, 1985.

"It must be admitted from the beginning that we do not know how life began. It is generally believed that a variety of processes led to the formation of simple organic compounds on the primitive earth. These compounds combined together to give more and more complex structures until one was formed that could be called living. No one should be satisfied with an explanation as general as this."Stanley L Miller, The Origins of Life on the Earth, Prentice-Hall, 1974.

"To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."Pierre-P. Grasse, former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences.

"To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times...What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design....What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours."Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books: London, 1985, p328-329

"So we have now what we believe is strong evidence for life on Earth 3,800 thousand million years [ago]. This brings the theory for the Origin of Life on Earth down to a very narrow range. Allowing half a billion years (for the disturbed conditions described above) we are now thinking, in geochemical terms, of instant life..."Cyril Ponnamperuma (Director of Chemical Evolution Branch, NASA Ames Research Center, California)

"The presence of limestone, and other probably biogenic sediments, of stromatolites, microfossils, chemical fossils and biogenic kerogen in early Precambrian rocks suggests that life originated virtually simultaneously with the formation of the crust of the earth."John C. Walton, "The Chemical Composition of the Earth's Original Atmosphere," http://www.grisda.org/origins/03066.htm

"Even the simpler molecules are produced only in small amounts in realistic experiments simulating possible primitive earth conditions. What is worse, these molecules are generally minor constituents of tars: It remains problematical how they could have been separated and purified through geochemical processes whose normal effects are to make organic mixtures more and more of a jumble. With somewhat more complex molecules these difficulties rapidly increase. In particular a purely geochemical origin of nucleotides (the subunits of DNA and RNA) presents great difficulties. In any case, nucleotides have not yet been produced in realistic experiments of the kind Miller did."Alexander G. Cairns-Smith, "The first organisms," Scientific American 252(6), 1985, p. 90.

"[The Miller-Urey paradigm was at one time] worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions...The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it...It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may...There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life...Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative."Hubert P. Yockey, Information theory and molecular biology, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1992, p. 336

"The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 304.

"We need a pathway, a succession of chemical steps leading from the first building blocks of life to the RNA world. Chemistry, however, has so far failed to elucidate this pathway. At first sight, the kind of chemistry needed seems so unlikely to take place spontaneously that one might be tempted to invoke, as many have done and some still do, the intervention of some supernatural agency. Scientists, however, are condemned by their calling to look for natural explanations of even the most unnatural-looking events. They must even, in the present case, eschew the facile recourse to chance, as I hope to have made clear"Christian de Duve (1974 Nobel prize for biology), Vital Dust: Life As a Cosmic Imperative, 1995.

"Creationists have looked forward to the day when science may actually create a "living" thing from simple chemicals. They claim, and rightly so, that even if such a man-made life form could be created, this would not prove that natural life forms were developed by a similar chemical evolutionary process. The [evolutionist] scientist understands this and plods on testing theories."William D. Stansfield, Professor of Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State University

"This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major lacuna. . . . My personal belief, for what it is worth, is that a fully satisfactory theory of the origin of life demands some radically new ideas."Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life, 1999.

November 08, 2005

Abiogenesis: A Problem of Origins (part 3)

Assuming we have everything necessary to begin assembling proteins, what problems are then encountered? Let me use the analogy of language to illustrate the problems.

The building blocks of language are letters. These are analogous to amino acids in that there is a specific group of them — the alphabet — out of all possible symbols that are employed to make words. Likewise, amino acids come in a wide variety, but only 20 specific ones are involved in forming the proteins utilized in biological systems. The problem is that even were conditions somehow right to supply all the essential amino acids, there is still no assurance that dozens of non-essential ones wouldn't be present as well.

The next requirement for our "letters" is that they are facing in the correct direction. The equivalent in the world of amino acids are left-handed and right-handed molecules (chirality), and since they are three-dimensional structures, it is not simply a matter of flipping a single molecule in the right direction; they are two different though mirror image molecules. Proteins are assembled using only left-handed amino acids (homochiral), but again, any process that might produce amino acids is just as likely to produce right-handed as left-handed ones, as occurred in the Miller-Urey experiments. And a left-handed molecule has no greater affinity for its own kind than it does for the other.

Next we must string our letters together to begin forming words and sentences. Likewise, proteins are formed by stringing amino acids one-to-another in linear chains (polypeptide bonds). The thing is, amino acids can just as readily be connected in any number of other three-dimensional formations. Just as numerous links could attach at any given point on a chain rather than just end-to-end, so could amino acids branch and cluster in infinite patterns if unconstrained.

Just as characters ultimately form meaningful sentences and paragraphs, so are proteins the completed units of their chemical language. Proteins may be anywhere from 100 to several thousand amino acids in length. But not just any string will do; it must be a complete string which has "meaning." For a protein to be meaningful it must be arranged in some particular way that allows it to serve some utilitarian purpose. Just as a wrench is better for bolts than a lump of metal, so proteins must be "shaped" to serve their own purposes. This "shaping" involves having just the right amino acids in the right places, which allow the folding and binding of the chain into chemically active formations. The problem here is that there are vastly more arrangements that yield meaningless shapes than meaningful ones, just in the same way that random letters are vastly more likely to make gibberish than meaningful sentences.

So, in the process of assembling proteins, chance must overcome the following obstacles as it connects amino acids: Each new molecule must be another amino acid, and it must be one of the essential 20. Each must be left-handed only. And each must assume a peptide bond. Now, considering that we must repeat these conditions at least 100 times (for the simplest protein), and that what results must also be meaningful in some way, we soon reach odds that have been conservatively estimated at 1 chance in 10120 against such a thing happening without guided assistance. To satisfy these odds we would have to convert all the matter in the universe into a prebiotic soup, mix it a trillion times per second, and then wait up to one trillion, trillion years for our results (the universe is alleged to be only 13.7 billion years old).

But let's not stop the fun just yet; let's assume we can build such a protein. What good will it do? It has to survive and reproduce or it will be just a fortuitous blip on the geological time-line. And even if this lonely molecule could somehow reproduce, it is a long way off from our target of cellular life. Even if a child could build a skateboard, it would be a rather meager step toward building a Porsche.

The simplest known organism is mycoplasma gentalium with 482 proteins. But this is a parasite, meaning that a free-living organism must be more complex yet to provide its own energy and material sources (e.g., photosynthesis or chemosynthesis). The problem with the cell is that it is not just a more complex version of a self-replicating molecule; it is a whole new-order entity: an "irreducibly complex" system.

The cell solves the problem of protein production by including protein-building factories: ribosomes. But these "machines" can do nothing unless given instructions, by the RNA, on which amino acids to assemble. And the RNA knows nothing until it reads it from the DNA library. But RNA and DNA cannot come into being without the assistance of certain proteins manufactured by the ribosome. There is a 3-way dependency here without which no member could survive or function, and this does not include other essential components, like the cell membrane, which enfolds all the participants and protects them from the hostile elements.

Since there are chemical similarities between DNA and RNA, some have suggested that the precursor to the first cell may have been some form of self-replicating RNA molecule, the simplest of the two. But of all the problems encountered by amino acids and proteins, RNA and DNA molecules have these and more. This is because they are not only similarly arranged to form their unique structures (right-handed, difficult to make nucleotides in chained structures), but they are also "information" bearers. And whatever is the first complex structure to form must not only be able to produce more of itself, it must be ultimately capable of producing other distinct, complementary assemblies.

Surely our ideas about the origin of life will have to change radically with the passage of time. Not only is the gene itself a problem: think of the system that would have to come into being to produce a living cell! It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. Furthermore, DNA by itself accomplishes nothing. Its only reason for existence is the information that it carries and that is used in the production of a protein enzyme. At the moment, the link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. Yet selection only acts upon phenotypes and not upon the genes. At this level, the phenotype is the enzyme itself. How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.

In light of these and other difficulties and disappointments in the field of origins research, the theory of "panspermia," proposed by the likes of DNA discoverer Francis Crick and Oxford chemist Leslie Orgel, has become an attractive option to some (and a common movie theme). Panspermia is the idea that life was seeded on earth from outer space, either by a chance occurrence (non-directed panspermia) or by way of alien intervention (directed panspermia). It is a tacit admission of the failure of science to produce a naturalistic, earth-bound explanation, and it is a desperate hope by either path.

Chance-created life from outer space must not only overcome most of the same chemical assembly issues as on earth, it must be transported here through long, hard years of hostile conditions (e.g., cold, heat, intense radiation). And alien directed life means that we must account for the rise of such an alien race, which itself must appear by chance and take its billions of years to evolve. Besides being no ultimate answer to the origin of life from matter, it pushes the time in which it must appear into the deep recesses of a young, unruly universe. Origins of life research has been a disappointing field of study, though it continues to be pursued by an adventurous few with unfounded optimism and a vivid imagination.

Conclusion

More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Review 13 (1988), 348.

If Darwin had only been privy to the details of what he was seeking to explain then there is reason to speculate over the strength of his convictions. But once a theory is entrenched it is difficult to dislodge, even while decade-by-decade its probability is eroded away by the actual data. But having put God out of the business of creation, and banished Him from the realm of science, evolutionists are stuck with the task of making the impossible seem plausible, and portraying their skeptics, ironically, as faith-blinded fools for doubting that they will one day find their answer.

This is not to suggest a mere "God-of-the-gaps" solution, like appealing to the wrath of Zeus prior to the understanding of electro-static atmospheric discharges (lightning). There is a difference between proposing something based on ignorance and proposing it based on the detailed knowledge you do have. The problem is that we have acquired a pretty darn good understanding of how chemistry operates, and this problem of abiogenesis looks intractable in principle. If science were about reasoning to the best explanation, then intelligent design must surely be given the courtesy of consideration.

Articles by Category

Season of Skepticism
If I read an account by someone claiming to see a UFO, I'd be skeptical of any details they brings up. That's because presumably none of us has ever encountered a UFO in our entire life.

So I don't know if it can be criticised that a person starts to read the bible with an assumption that the miracles are not real. If I never encountered a miracle as spectacular as one described in the Bible, then I should be justified in being highly skeptical of its existence. It would me much more plausible to believe that the one describing the miracle to me is being inaccurate or deceitful. That compounded by the fact that civilizations past were highly superstitious also support my presumption. This isn't to say that the miracles would fall on deaf ears, but upon hearing them I would have a strong inclination to dismiss them and this would be just, as it would go against everything that I know about this world.
I understand your point. However, there is a difference between an improbable or rare event that would need greater evidence to convince us, and being opposed to the idea of something in principle. In the case Crossan, I have heard him state that he doesn't believe that God would do miracles (i.e., do "cheap tricks" and violate His laws of nature). In all the debates I've heard with him, his rejection of the miraculous elements of Scripture seem to stem from something other than an objective look at the manuscripts and the behavior of the early Christians. And I've heard other individuals who oppose Scripture a priori on the basis of their naturalism. That is, they rule it out as a credible book simply because it contains miraculous stories.

As to the "superstitious" nature of the ancients, I think it is often overrated. I don't think they experienced someone being healed from a terminal disease or raised from the dead any more often than we did — they knew a rare thing when they saw it. I think the "superstition" manifest itself more in their explanations for natural events, or in their acceptance of certain divine histories. Also, I wouldn't necessarily say we are so much more enlightened than they. Simply note the interest in horoscopes and new age materials these days.
I understand your first point.

For your second though, what I mean by superstitious is that people back then would be more willing to believe something as supernatural when in reality there was a natural explanation behind it which they were simply unaware of, it was just a coincidence, or it was the work of some con-artists. Not only that, they would be more inclined to attribute supernatural characteristics to these unexplanable events, and/or exaggerate what they saw. For example, misinformation can get people all the time, even today -- think of conspiracy theories, urban legends, and in the past mythological creatures, the Turk and whatnot.

I agree that these days there are lots of people who are still misled or inclined to believe in supernatural things (or extraterrestrials) when nothing is really going on, but that corroborates what I'm saying. Back then the majority of people were like that while these days those people tend to be a minority since we have more knowledge of the working world.
There's a new dvd out that claims to completely disprove christianity.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000CAPZBC/104-2983483-8142307?v=glance&n=130&n=507846&s=dvd&v=glance
I used to think it was pretty significant that just about every naturalistic explanation for the origin of Christian belief (hallucinations, cognative dissonance, swoon theory, etc.) failed for one reason or another. But I'm beginning to doubt that it's very significant at all. A person doesn't not need to have a philosophical objection to miracles in general in order to be skeptical about specific accounts of miracles. I believe in miracles, but that doesn't mean I'm going to believe every story I hear. I think even those of us who believe in miracles in general are skeptical about specific instances of them, and well we should be. We'd be gullible to buy into any miracle story we hear just because we believe miracles can and do happen.

So instead of weighing the "resurrection hypothesis" against, say, the "hallucination hypothesis," it seems the best approach is to weigh the "resurrection hypothesis" against the possibility that there's a naturalistic explanation that we're just not aware of. We don't need to come up with a specific theory and then pit it against the resurrection theory. We can just say, "Well, I don't know what happened, but surely it's more likely that there's some natural explanation than it is that a dead man came back to life." Isn't that how we treat most miracle and UFO stories we hear? Even when people tell me they themselves witnessed something spectacular, I don't know what actually happened, but just because I don't know what actually happened doesn't mean I'm not justified in thinking something happened other than what they're saying.

And if you want to give an alternative explanation other than resurrection, i don't think you necessarily need to justify it. If you can give a naturalistic explanation that at least possible, then even if there's no particular reason to believe that it is true, the mere possibility of it forces you to weight the probability of a resurrection miracle against the probability that there's some natural explanation whether you know about it or not.

One possibility that has often jumped out at me is this: Suppose Peter, by himself, had some kind of vision or hallucination which caused him to believe that he had seen the risen Jesus. Suppose Jesus really did expect to be crucified, relayed that to his disciples, and also predicted his resurrection. Even if Peter had lost hope after Jesus was crucified, it would still have to have been in the back of his mind as an "If only..." or "Oh how I wish..." It's not that far fetched.

Now suppose that Peter was so convinced that he had seen the risen Lord that he rushed to tell everybody else. Suppose further that a few of them believed him wholeheartedly, and they kicked themselves for doubting in the first place. They were so excited about it that they came back the next day and said they saw him too. Now they didn't actually see him; they just wanted everybody to think they did. I mean think about it. Wouldn't you love to be able to tell people that you saw the risen Jesus? What motivates people to tell fantastic UFO and miracles stories? Whatever it is, the same thing could've motivated a few of the disciples to say the same thing.

And after a few of them say the same thing, the rest of them become even more convinced. They don't want to be out of the loop, so of course they start claiming they saw Jesus, too.

Now this seems to answer the question of why they were willing to die for their beliefs. They did not actuall see Jesus themselves; however, they totally believed Jesus was risen. They believed each other that they had seen the risen Jesus, even though each individual (except Peter) knew they hadn't.

And this would also explain Paul's 500 witnesses. Paul defends himself in Romans saying, "Have I not seen the Lord?" In John, the author gives himself credibility by saying he had witnessed and even touched Jesus. Apparently, there was some prestige with having seen the risen Jesus. Now suppose 500 people or more all believed that Jesus really was risen. They totally bought into it. It is not too far fetched to imagine that many of them claimed to have seen Jesus even if they didn't.

Even if we grant that Jesus actually appeared to many people--all of the disciples, and maybe 120 people in one gathering--it still seems possible if not probable that many people claimed to see Jesus even if they didn't. People just have a tendency to want to tell fanstatic stories that they themselves participated in. That's why there's so many UFO stories.

This, to me, seems like a much stronger argument against resurrection than anything I've heard or read from any skeptic or anybody opposed to Christianity. But I believe the resurrection happened. I think the evidence justifies it. It's strange to me sometimes that I, being a Christian, can come up with better arguments against Christianity than anything I ever hear from non-Christians.

Sam
That's a pretty good argument, Sam. But if you came up with that explanation yet you still believe in the resurrection, then you must have even better reasons for believing in the ressurection hypothesis, right? It'd be interesting to here them sometime.
Well I hope to get to them sometime.
I guess I should point out that there are a couple of holes in my theory. First, the evidence seems to suggest that Jesus did appear to people in groups. It seems unlikely that people would lie about group appearances, since everybody else in the group would know they were lying. Second, it doesn't account for the empty tomb. The empty tomb seems to have had a lot to do either with their belief that Jesus was raised, or at least with how they argued that Jesus was raised. If they used it to argue for Jesus' resurrection, then it must have been public knowledge.

But like I said, it isn't necessary that my theory is true or even that any evidence supports it. All it's meant to show is that it's possible that there's some naturalistic explanation. As long as it's possible, then we have to weigh the likelihood of something natural happening with something miraculous happening. All things being equal, we ordinarily choose the natural over the supernatural. Even when we can't explain something, we usually assume there is some natural explanation yet to be discovered. The only reason I choose the resurrection theory is because I think the evidence is strong enough to overcome this bias for natural explanations that we all have whether we believe in miracles or not.
Dale, I think you are entirely right to live in a position of default skepticism about the supernatural. Everyone should admit these occurrences are exceedingly rare, if they ever happen.

The miracle claims of Scripture, however, are strong enough to overcome that skepticism as long as you don't have a philosophical presupposition that the supernatural does not exist.

Christianity doesn't have just one claim of supernaturalism. There are many, that all taken together, create a preponderance of evidence for a large number of open-minded people. However, there are so many psychological factors involved in epistomology that what seems obviously factual for some, will never seem that way to others, even when they all observe the same evidence.
Sam, I know what you mean. Sometimes a good critique of Christianity will occur to me that I've never heard expressed from a non-believer. Most of those raised by non-believers are pretty elementary from my perspective. The one's that are the toughest for me to handle are the ones that take a great amount of theological (and philosophical) understanding of Christianity, and most non-Christians are lucky to know the barest essentials of what Christianity actually teaches. The toughest debates are the in-house ones.

I think people do need to be prepared to justify their alternative stories. You can claim anything you like about Jesus (He was a Hindu guru, a space alien, etc), but there's certainly no reason anyone is obligated to take you seriously unless you can come up with some justification for your belief. So far, I've found that every alternative view runs up against one or more fatal flaws. Gary Habermas has an interesting book ("Case for the Resurrection of Jesus") that takes several points of data about Jesus that even the radical skeptics are willing to concede and then measures the various theories against these facts to show their bankruptcy. It is problems like these that are the reason that there is no single, long-standing position held by the critics on what "really" happened all those centuries ago. Although the hallucination theory has indeed made something of a comeback. I think they prefer to call them "visions" these days though.

Another hole in your hallucination theory is that these witnesses not only claimed to "see" Jesus, but they record quite a bit of dialog with Him — important dialog from which we get some key points of doctrine. This means they would not just be suffering from the power of suggestion and desire, but they would be consciously making up theological content that they would be forced to defend with their lives. It's easy to find examples of people dying for what they believe to be true, but this sounds awfully like giving your life for a lie. Perhaps if it could be demonstrated that they benefited from their lies, like the many wives and power of Joseph Smith and Muhammad, but there is no such evidence of this in the early church.
Vman, the film you mention has a major credibility strike against it right up front in that it attempts to argue that Jesus never even existed. As we discussed on your blog, this is a radical fringe view that taints this effort from the get-go. I'm sure that fans of Dan Brown and Michael Moore would enjoy it though.
Paul,

I agree with you to an extent. I mean I think some alternate explanations are just plain silly and shouldn't be taken seriously. If somebody wants to argue that Jesus survived the crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene, and moved on with his life, they have to have a good argument. But I don't think a person necessarily needs to defend a point of view if all they're trying to show is that it's possible there is some naturalistic explanation that we may not be aware of. The scenario may have no evidence in support of it at all, but as long as it isn't too far fetched, and as long as it doesn't contradict strong evidence to the contrary, I think those scenarios do succeed in demonstrating that something natural could easily have happened.

I think it would be much easier to argue that various people experienced what they took to be the risen Jesus than it would be to argue that they interacted with him or touched him. The touching of Jesus could easily be dismissed as apologetic embellishment that grew up around real appearances.

My scenario occured to me specifically to avoid the charge of "dying for a lie." In my scenario, the people who claimed to see the risen Jesus actually did believed he had risen from the dead. Suppose you or are I were willing to die for our belief in Jesus even though we've never seen him ourselves. We're willing to die for him because we actually believe he's the Christ who died for sins and rose from the dead. Suppose further that one of us decided to make up a story about having seen him with our own eyes. Then we are martyred for our belief in Jesus. Does it follow that just because we lied about seeing him that we're therefore dying for a lie? No, because we would've died for Jesus even if we hadn't seen him or claimed to see him. Do you see what I mean?
Sam, I see what you mean. In my case the problem with that scenario would be that the Savior I believed in, that I believed was raised from the dead had commanded me not to lie, to love the truth, and that sin has bad consequences. I'm therefore very motivated not to lie, even a 'good' lie. So I couldn't do it, not being the kind of Christian that would die for my allegiance to Christ...why would I then be willing to give up my allegiance to Him just to tell a more compelling story?
Sam,

I don't think a person needs to defend their point of view at all; they can believe whatever they like. But if they want to be in the game, so to speak, they need to be ready with some justification. I think you are basically agreeing here, but it sounds like you are willing to accept a loosely plausible justification. It's certainly fine to hold to something tentatively, but if there are knockdown arguments against it, then it's hardly reasonable to hang on. I think the main problem is that most people are not willing to go out and test their views against the facts. This is proved by the fact that I could ask the average vocal atheist if they've ever even heard of Norm Geisler or William Lane Craig (2 big guns in the world of Christian apologetics) and odds are that they'd say "no."

I think I see what you mean on the other point, but I think that Jeff's right in pointing out that Christianity is antithetical to the moral issues that would be involved in being loose with the facts about our Lord. Additionally, if there were no actual resurrection then there's a pile of innocent embellishment going on. For example, the fellows on the road to Emmaus would have made up an entire afternoon's activities with Jesus and a lot of Old Testament exegesis to boot. This would also have involved collusion on the part of the two men who were anxious to run all the way back the others in order to tell them the details of what they had dreamed up. I can't get away from a conclusion of deliberate dishonesty. Then we can compare the martyrdom of each of the apostles (and numerous disciples as well) to, say, the witnesses of Joseph Smith's exploits, many of whom went on record to speak against him or were excommunicated.
Jeff, maybe you wouldn't lie about something like that, but you'd have to argue that nobody would lie about something like that in order to rebutt my scenario.
Paul, I think you're right that my scenario is weak in the fact that it requires the disciples and a few others to be more dishonest than we would expect them to be after reading the New Testament. These people were very committed to the Lord. But on the other hand, people often do make misguided decisions. Take, for example, Peter's effort in the garden to save Jesus by drawing his sword. Peter had good motives, but his actions were all wrong. Perhaps some early Christians with good intentions did make up some stuff because they thought it would further the kingdom.
Sam, you're right that my comment doesn't rebutt your scenario. But it does speak to it's plausibility. At the end of the day most people agree that we are most justified in believing the most plausible explanation for the data.I assume that you believe in the resurrection. I also assume, therefore, that you find it the most plausible explanation. Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it's more plausible that He did resurrect than that the numerous disciples making up stories.

By the way, how would your scenario answer the issue of Paul's conversion? He was an enemy of Christ (and the idea of resurrection) when He met Him on the road and converted as a result. It seems you'd also have to say in this case that He converted ahead of time and then wanted to make up a story that would lend himself authority.
It's probably worth mentioning that I think there are very strong rebuttals to this theory of yours as well as others, even though I don't have them at hand to bring out (because I'm not really well versed on the defense of the resurrection). I know this is an appeal to authority, so take it as you will.

I heard Antony Flew 'debating' (more like a conversation) with a Christian apologist (Paul, was it Gary Habermas?) on the resurrection. What was interesting to me was that the world's foremost atheistic philosopher (arguably) admitted candidly that there was no viable explanation for the data we have. I remember him repeatedly saying: "There is that..." and having no answer.

He even admitted that Christianity, and all attendant beliefs, was an entirely rational belief, moreso than atheism.

In the end, he even admitted he didn't believe precisely because he was "strongly disinclined" to believe.

You're right. That was Flew's discussion with Gary Habermas.

I think you have a good point with Paul's conversion. It does not fit neatly in my theory, that's for sure.

I don't have time to go through my own case for the resurrection right now, but I may do a series of blogs on it sometime.

Sam
Sam, I would be interested to hear your take on the resurrection. I've seen good defenses such as that offered by Gary Habermas and also William Lane Craig. I'm always anxious for new insights though.

Jeff, you may have missed my blog on the Habermas/Flew debate, found here.
Now I remember, I had forgotten that blog post, thanks.
"No Creed But Christ"? Christ Who?
What Paul said.
This is all due to people trying to make christianity acceptable to the masses. If you say that you don't believe in denominations or organized religion but you blieve in jesus, you sound more new age and acceptable to non christians.
I think V is right. Although I think it's valid when some people disavow denominationalism because they follow Biblical teaching as consistently as they know how and find that it doesn't square 100% with any particular denomination.
my response to this ended up being very very long, so I put it on my blog so that I would be able to spell check/edit it at will...

My Response
Hey Chris, nice blog post. I have to agree with much of what you say and I suppose that, understood a certain way, my comment could have looked like I was saying we should all go our own way.I didn't mean that though. I think your argument might even work better for a Roman Catholic who arguable possesses a stronger lineage with the apostolic teaching. So you need to convert! However, the protestant reformation was right and you then need to convert again!

Well, let's not go there. I'll just say that following the 'church' as you advocate only fails to the extent that the church has deviated, via it's tradition, from the original teachings of the apostles. I'm not familiar with the Orthodox faith and can't weigh in with any cases there. With the RCC it's pretty easy (papal infallibility, indulgences...). So what we protestants have to hang on to is a systemmatic method of Biblical interpretation (grammatico-historical). This is not done in a vacuum though. We stand on the shoulders of those who came before, tracing our theology to Paul and other Apostles through the heroes of the reformation, back through Augustine and others. This is not a claim that we are somehow the 'true' church. But rather a response to the critique that we make it up for ourselves. (which many do by the way...and especially now in our post-modern age).
The nice way to put it is to say that the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church "split" way way back when. Basically it was over the filioque, which is the addition of "and The Son" to the Nicene Creed.

The baised Orthodox way to put it (my way ;) ) would be to say that the Catholic Church fell astray. It was at that point that they deviated to the point of absurdity (the points you mentioned) and it's members WERE in desperate need of reformation. Since there probably weren't a ton of english speaking Orthodox churches back then, the protestant movement was a good fit for this need. However, the Orthodox church has been around since the start. It used to just be called "the church" and it's members "christians"... With the advent of brand names we became "Orthodox" christians.

I am very impressed with the way many protestant denominations look back to the fathers of the faith for their teaching and inspiration. I am disgusted with those that throw it all out and make it up as they go along.

Let's take the filioque for example. Who really cares if the Creed says "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" or just "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father"? Isn't that the kind of dogmatic nit-picky sillyness non-denominational protestants are trying to escape? Yep. But it is VERY important. See, if you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father AND the Son, that gives the Father and the Son a leg up on the Holy Spirit. It puts Them above Him, and makes Him more of just an energy, or a lesser part of the Trinity. That's kind of what Jehova's witnesses say though, and they are wrong. Taken to it's extreme, the filioque allows you to not view/worship the Holy Spirit in the same light you view the Father and the Son. Is this crucial to your salvation? Probably not in the beginning, but maybe 10 generations down the line, if incremented bit by bit, you could end up with the holy duality instead of the Holy Trinity. Sounds silly, but there ARE certain denominations that are on the road to viewing it this way, and the extreme version of this (as I said) is the Jehovah's witnesses.

So, again, it is very important to study the early church fathers. And in my oppinion, especially to study the Orthodox church...

This might interest some who know nothing of church history (and even some who do). It takes you all the way up through the seventeenth century of the Church.

And once again, I am not saying that there is no salvation to be found in protestant (or even Catholic) churches. I simply think that the Orthodox church is the closest to being, if not the "true" church (otherwise, why would I be in it? If there is one ultimate truth, someone has to be closest to that truth. If you don't believe that your church is closest to that truth, why are you there?)...
FYI. I'll be adding a lengthy comment here, but I can't guarantee I'll get it in before I take off tomorrow for vacation. I'm also trying to work on a new post on "Christian attrocities" in response to a discussion thread I found on Vman's blog.
Chris,

First of all, let me state for the sake of my non-Christian readers that this is an in-house debate. You are Orthodox (note the capital "O"), Jeff attends a non-denominational Protestant church, and I attend a mainline Protestant church. Even so (and I think I speak for each of us), we are brothers in Christ. Of all those things over which we might dispute, there is a vast number of things on which we do agree — those being essential to "orthodoxy" and our salvation. However, no one can split a hair finer than a Christian theologian (which all Christians are to some degree), or enjoys doing so when given the chance. Truth is worth contending for and knowing as deeply as possible.

I must agree with you that "tradition" should not be abandoned wholesale. And you are right that most cultists and heretics begin with the mistake of attempting to blaze their own new trails. Unfortunately, most of them are not of the same theological prowess as the Fathers of the church and so they find themselves off in a ditch eventually. There are good reasons for each of the doctrinal milestones of the church, and, right or wrong, we do ourselves an intellectual disservice if we do not use each of those positions and the substance of those debates (at minimum) as our starting points. And where (and if) we depart, we should have our defenses in hand.

I can agree that such theological tradition is important in the sense that we "stand on the shoulders of giants," but I think there is some equivocation on the word "tradition" among the denominations. There is 1) the tradition of biblical study, theological inquiry, and doctrinal development, 2) the traditions of doctrine and practice as decreed by some empowered, official authority, and 3) the undocumented teachings of Jesus and the apostles which are supposedly passed down in some non-literary fashion.

The Protestant Reformers say that #1 is to be engaged and respected, but is not infallible, and #2 is based on a spurious understanding of the "church" and the work of the Holy Spirit. We are most sympathetic to #3, but there are problems in demonstrating what "traditions" are actually grounded in apostolic authority without some form of documentation; and Scripture has been canonized as the only wholly inspired and authoritative documentation for good reason. You can give me any of your doctrinal traditions and I can say, "prove it." But without a solid literary pedigree to the apostles themselves, there will always grounds for doubt. This leaves us only with the Bible as the final court of arbitration, and this is why the Reformers appeal to "Scripture Alone." It is not that there is nothing else by which we should be influenced, but rather that there is nothing that should trump Scripture when engaging in theological analysis.

Protestants hold to the perspicuity (clarity/understandability) of the Scripture. To hold that they are incoherent apart from some official interpreter seems to me a slander against a sovereign God who could surely get His point across if He so desired. But where Scripture is a bit heady or context laden, we may surely appeal to the minds of others who are more gifted and educated than ourselves, and who likewise are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. But where Scripture is blazingly clear and someone's "tradition" conflicts with it, what are we to do? Must we go with tradition every time? If this is so, then Scripture may simply be treated as a book of interesting stories, while we get our real theology from tradition. (This brings to mind the way that the Book of Mormon, in practice, overshadows the Bible, which they claim is inspired as well.) And by what means will we interpret the obscure and equivocal areas of "tradition"; who will interpret the interpretation? The buck must stop somewhere, and since we all agree that Scripture is a known quantity, and above reproach, then this is a reasonable place to make a stand.

As far as it's being "incomplete," I must agree that there is more to the story, as John mentions, but each of the authors has sought to commend to us his most important points. We have 4 Testaments of Jesus, and books like Romans and Hebrews are systematic works that would have been negligent in excluding any essential details. There were surely more parables about what the "kingdom of heaven" was like and more miracles that could have been mentioned, but things like these are not categorically different from what was recorded, only more detail on the same. How much must we thrash over uncertain and unverifiable tradition at the potential expense of those sure things we do have?

The answer to this point from tradition-advocates is generally that we would not know what to make of Scripture were we not illuminated by the understanding of tradition. But this is just as problematic. How do we know that the correct "understanding" has been passed down intact? And whose understanding do we take? There is some conflict amongst even the best of the Church Fathers [again, for my non-Christian friends, this is typically not in the area of essentials], and do we go with the traditions as defined by the East or by the West? It seems to me that if we are going with tradition and church authority, that Rome has the better claim with both Peter and Paul ending their days there (among other reasons). In fact, many of the greatest defenders of orthodoxy were not of the Eastern Church but from the Western Church (e.g., Athanasius against Arianism, Augustine against Pelagianism), and some of the most notorious heretics were from the East (Nestorius, Eutyches, Paul of Samosata, Montanus, and the Arian dissenters at the Council of Nicea). And even you and your father have both admitted to me that there are beliefs held by the Orthodox Church with which you take issue.

I am not clear, then, on what grounds the East believes itself to be the bearer of full orthodoxy. It seems that when it comes down to this debate, the defense breaks down to a theological dispute, as you affirm by bringing up the "filioque" controversy. This is not just a matter of the East and West appealing to what they understand to be the oral tradition of the apostles on this matter; it is a principled debate driven by those things known from Scripture. To this the Reformers say a hearty yeah and amen; let the debate proceed and may the best theology win.

The difference with the Reformers is that we do not claim to be the inerrant bearers (or creators) of a stealth tradition. Instead, we believe that we must do the best we can in our theology, driven by the Holy Spirit, guided by tradition, but grounded ultimately in Scripture. We could be wrong in our understanding of any given doctrine, (many being self-evidentially beyond dispute though), and knowing this we do not find ourselves in the awkward position of having to continually choke down past theological missteps. With this new perspective in mind, the Reformers were able to cut themselves loose of the "traditions" of Rome and go back to the drawing board of Scripture, the early councils, and the writings of the past luminaries. It is encouraging for all parties that they found the theology of the early councils (like Nicea and Chalcedon) to be sound not on the grounds of the unquestionable authority of tradition, but on Scriptural and philosophical grounds. And this bears far more weight in my view than an evidence-defying position that some group landed on the right doctrines by mystical inspiration or that somewhere beneath the sheets such doctrines were transmitted unscathed from Christ Himself.

It seems to me that many times what is meant by "tradition" is those things contained in the liturgy. I have no doubt that this liturgy is ancient (though I believe there are some variations among the different Orthodox groups), but did this come from Christ and the apostles? I am skeptical of such a claim, but I am not sure it is a claim that is being made. As I understand, the liturgy is essentially a product of the church at Constantinople some centuries later. I have no problem affirming that, or admitting that it is a reasonable encapsulation of biblical theology, but I don't see any warrant in thinking that it is the God-ordained way that the worship of Christ must proceed.

As I recall my Scriptures they tell me that there is freedom in Christ, and that God desires worship in truth and Spirit. If I were to make a case against the Orthodox liturgy, which I am not keen to do, I might bring forward Jesus' admonition against repetition in prayer, the fact that excessive ritual and symbolism can numb the participant to the substance behind the form, and that other forms of practice may be more successfully evangelistic. (However, I could also articulate certain advantages to a fixed liturgy — advantages that are enjoyed by those Protestant churches that use the Nicene and Apostles Creed in their own liturgies.)

And perhaps my main concern with the Orthodox Church is its meager participation in the exercise of the Great Commission (missions/evangelism). If I were Orthodox I would imagine struggling to make sense of the raging spread of the Gospel throughout the world by those rascally Protestant denominations. And I mean an abundance of souls on fire for the biblical Christ and being martyred for their beliefs in many cases. If the Holy Spirit is absent from this, then we have a theologically strange phenomenon to explain. But if the Holy Spirit is present there — outside the ministrations of the Orthodox Church — then perhaps it needs to reconsider its place in the Body of Christ.

I am prepared to accept Orthodoxy as another viable denomination of Christianity, with its good and bad points (as all have), but I take issue with any elitist perspective it might hold for itself in the vein of the Roman Catholic Church.
NPR Exorcises Jesus from Narnia
Well, I don't know how we could decide. Like you said, she either was ignorant of Christianity so as a reader and/or viewer (I assume) she didn't notice the parallels, or she knows this movie, like the stories, will be well-received by impressionable young people and she wants to make sure that no one associates a pleasant memory with Christianity.Either could be the case.
nice!
It was Kim Masters who downplayed the obvious Christian parallels of the story line and characters. Replay here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5013120I thought it was just me that sensed an undercurrent of anti-Christian bias on NPR. It seems like the same cast of characters have been in place and entrenched at NPR and are treating it as their own private fiefdom.I still listen to them on occasionbut am always on alert for their subtle intonations of radical left-wing and anti-Christian bias.
Roman, you're not alone. As long as 6 years ago I knew a guy who called it "National Liberal Radio".It's social liberalism that is anti-Christian, and NPR certainly qualifies.I don't think it's just an NPR problem. I think that much of the news media falls in to the same category.
Hrm... If you are a positive minded person, and try and come up with the best reason someone would do something bad, you might come up with this:

[thoughts of NPR reporter]

She said that because she thought it was such a good movie that she didn't want people to not go to it just because of that whole silly christianity thing.

People shouldn't miss out on such a cool film just because they are protesting christianity, or just because some christians have to ruin it by thinking about it alegorically instead of just seeing it as a neat story.

It's worth seeing, even if you aren't a christian. So why let all that religion crap get in the way. Go see the movie for what it is, and don't worry about all that silly allegory, after all, even Lewis didn't publicly say Alsan represented Christ (that she knew of, although she didn't research that claim. But why should she? Such a brilliant childrens book writer wouldn't do that, would he? Lewis just wrote children's books, didn't he?)

[/thoughts of NPR reporter]

That's probably along the lines of what she would have been thinking in a world free from malicious intent.

My boss loved the books. He read them when he was little and thought they where "rad". But then his teacher told him that Aslan was Jesus and he got angry that he had been "duped" (he felt) since he wasn't Christian. Maybe this lady wanted to keep similar things from happening, and make the movie more accessible and less "sneaky" to non-christians.

However, if you have a more negative outlook on the world (and non-christians and liberals), you probably think she is doing it to try and destroy the connection, and keep the movie from converting even more people the the crazy right wing extremist christian cults that are ruining our country...

I'm not sure which I think she was doing. Probably a little of both.
That "sneaky" suspicion plagues everything Christian or remotely Christian these days. Probably isn't helped by tv preachers.
I can't remember which book it was, but in one of the books, Aslan told the children that they couldn't come back to Narnia, and they must go back to their world and discover what Aslan's name is in that world. Or something like that. But I don't think it could've been more obvious that Aslan was Jesus in this world. That's what he was trying to tell them. I suspect C.S. Lewis put that in there to get his readers to ask themselves the same question, "What is Aslan's name in this world?"

Sam
If a popular children's book preached promiscuity or racism on a symbolic level then NPR would probably try to ignore the symbolism and focus on the book on a literal level. I guess in their minds preaching christianity is as bad as preaching other much worse ideas.
Scott,

I think the MSM has misunderstood "for everyone" to mean "non-Christian".

While the series was certainly written "for everyone", it does not follow that it must have originated from a pluralistic/secular worldview. To deduce so is to show a biased hand prejudiced against Christianity.
Is Homosexuality a Dysfunction?
One last thought about the genetic link: if homosexuality is transferred via genetics, and homosexuals generally do not produce offspring (except in very modern times through the magic of science), then just exactly how is it that it has significantly survived in the gene pool?
Well, just as you say, modern times are different. People in the past had to remain in the closet with grave consequences if they revealed their orientation. They may have also been confused, as the condition was not public. There would have been many people in the past who would still have married and had kids but would may still have retained homosexual tendencies. Also, some may have had bisexual tendencies, so that trait could have been passed on through marriage without many signs, which may be a precursor to or relation in the same vein (no pun intended) as homosexuality.

Another possibility is that those genes responsible are passed on but remain dormant (like diseases from the parent). It's only when two carrier parents have kids which result in a homosexual tendency.

It may be that both genetic and environmental factors are involved. There are genes that are activated due to environmental influences. Like a person with a genetic history of lung cancer may not get lung cancer, but they are much more susceptible if they take up smoking than a person without such a history.

Perhaps if one wants to prove that homosexuality is mostly or completely environmental, then they should take a couple of straight people and see if they can turn them gay through conditioning and other psychological techniques.
I've heard the assertion that Homosexuality is a coping mechanism triggered by environmental factors. If this is true then shouldn't there be pills or treatments for homosexuality?
Vman, yes there should be treatment for homosexuality. Some groups try to do this, and many have come through the training and are great advocates of it.However, to do so is to invoke the wrath of the homosexual community who see it as hate speech to say that anyone can be cured of homosexuality.
Dale,

I'll buy some of what you say (that they married and bred anyway for various reasons), but I think an undesirable/unproductive recessive trait can come to a point of functional extinction, like blond hair in China.

The "gay gene" researchers are all affirming that environmental factors are definitely a part of the cause, but only that they think there might be a biological factor. My point is that no one's interested in doing anything with that environmental factor. However, I'm willing to entertain the idea that there is a biological or soulish-personality component to it, which might make someone more susceptible to the environmental influences. But even that doesn't escape the preeminence of the environment. This is because it implies that the remediation of the negative influences could avert a homosexual outcome, much like the avoidance of smoking could avoid lung cancer. It also suggests that if environment can be influential in producing the condition it could also be of some influence in treating the condition. And as Jeff indicates, there are many who have taken successful steps in that direction. But as he also indicates, they are often branded traitors for doing so, even by non-homosexuals. Can you imagine anyone supporting a band of alcoholics picketing an AA meeting?

As far as your gay experiment is concerned, I don't think we'd find many volunteers for this, since few people would want to expose their children to any sort of childhood trauma just for the sake of science. And no matter how politically correct someone is, I think they secretly hope their children will turn out straight. It may simply be enough to look for common environmental characteristics among those who do happen to be homosexual. But again, gay activists cry foul whenever anyone even raises a hint that it might be a pathology rather than a "natural" (read, genetic) condition. However, there are some researchers who have bucked the trend and come to certain conclusions, and of the numerous homosexuals with whom I've had first and second-hand exposure, I've been able to confirm their findings. As I stated in Vman's blog, it seems to have the most to do with gender role-modeling, especially in relation to the father. Every homosexual that I am privy to has had a missing, distant, or hostile father-figure, among other issues.
Vman,

I don't think a pill would get it. Homosexuality is far more complicated than something like the urge to overeat (which we have diet pills for). Also, a pill would simply be a palliative for the symptom, not an ultimate "cure." But an interesting question for a homosexual might be, "If there were a pill you could take to become heterosexual, would you take it?" I'd lay odds that the majority would deny they had any sort of problem. Indeed, many would probably exhibit some form of pride in their condition. After all, they believe it is all a part of "who they are." And mustn't we "believe in ourselves," "follow our hearts," "and be true to ourselves?"
Paul,

"But an interesting question for a homosexual might be, "If there were a pill you could take to become heterosexual, would you take it?" I'd lay odds that the majority would deny they had any sort of problem. Indeed, many would probably exhibit some form of pride in their condition."

Maybe if the question was asked early enough in the formative stage of life. I don't know exactly what process this would entail but the challenges would be formidable.The first challenge would be to recognize homosexuality as a dysfunction (problem)in the context of natural development.Second, to set measured standards early enough in order to recognize a developing "problem".Thirdly, to affect some kind of remedial course of treatment.Being from Massachusetts, a state where this dysfunction has been "sold" and "bought" as acceptable by many, I hope that this mind set is not as easily sold in other states.
What if you asked a someone to take a pill to become a homosexual (i.e. "fake" the condition)? Would they take it? I doubt even the straight homosexual advocates would. Why? Because even they see it as a dysfunction...

Anyways, I am fairly certain you could never produce a pill to fix it. If you could, this would mean it where a physcical problem (like being bi-polar). You have no concious willfull control over physical problems. You can deal with them some through techniques, but they can't be "cured" by non-physical means.

Homosexuality is the perversion of normal sexuality. It is a psychological problem, like pedophelia. It just so happens that it is socially acceptable (since it is between two adults), while pedophelia is not. It's so sad/funny to see shows like Law and Order SVU deal with this issue. One day they are vehemently raging and hating a pedophile, and the next day one of the main cast members is dealing with coming to terms with the fact that their son was gay.

It's easy to be mad/disgusted by and hate a pedophile because what they are doing is destroying a child's life. Yet, when you really think about it, they are only doing it because (ussually) someone did the same to them when they were a child. This doesn't make it less wrong, but it does bring up a point. If they had had the same help when they were a child, if someone had rescued them from their abuser, they probably wouldn't be doing what they are doing. I doubt there are many publicly prominent pedophile support groups. A place where someone is dealing with their feelings (as an adult) can go to get help (Ussually they are just forced to join the group -after- they commit the crime. And even then it's still socially acceptable to hate them).

So, wheras they are both sexual perversions, since one is aimed at mature members of the opposite sex where the other is aimed at small children, one is celebrated, while the other is considered to be the most disgusting thing ever. One is encouraged, and said to be "normal" and "healthy", while the other is discouraged, and said to be "disgusting" and "unhealthy". To me, this is like saying that cutting off your foot is great, but cutting off your hand is horrible. It's very close to being the same thing, but one is socially acceptable to hate on because it involves children.

They both need treated, but niether can be helped through pills...
The problem (for gay activists) is that whatever means they use to try to convince us that they are simply born that way will work equally well for pedophiles (and bestiaphiles, alchoholics, etc.). Indeed, I have often heard such cases made on their behalf. This should then destroy their appeal to the if-they're-born-with-it-then-it's-natural-and-good justification — you would think anyway. The escape from this has not been to surrender the argument; it is to affirm pedophilia as well.

The project of normalizing pedophilia is already under way. Besides the more subtle cultural shifts, some of the major milestones along this path are the radical reduction in the age of consent (already happening in many other countries), the bold and vocal existence of groups like NAMBLA (and that the ACLU will actually take up their cause), and the legalization of "virtual" child pornography. It should also be noted that in 1994 the American Psychiatric Association quietly revised its diagnostic manual to say that paraphilias (which include pedophilia) are not a perversion or disorder unless the person's behavior causes them distress or social impairment. In other words, it's only a problem if your conscience is bothered by it; if you are a sociopath then you're healthy!
disgusting.

It's no wonder so many people think the world is about to end. We are truly returning to sodom and ghomorah. Actually, I almost wonder if some portions of our society are WORSE...The problem (for gay activists) is that whatever means they use to try to convince us that they are simply born that way will work equally well for pedophiles (and bestiaphiles, alchoholics, etc.). Indeed, I have often heard such cases made on their behalf. This should then destroy their appeal to the if-they're-born-with-it-then-it's-natural-and-good justification — you would think anyway. The escape from this has not been to surrender the argument; it is to affirm pedophilia as well.

First, unless I miss my guess, you are linking homosexuality with pedophilia. If you have solid, peer reviewed evidence, then perhaps you should cite it. I suspect the proportional number of pedophiles in the straight popolation is at least equal to the number of pedophiles in the gay population.

Second, your argument could be used to affirm any sociapathic behavior. Mass murder, say. And yet we still have laws on the books that allow society to punish murder.

One might ask if you're more bothered by the ickyness of gay sex than by the biblical injunction against it. I would suggest consensual gay sex is none of your business; particularly in the pluralistic society in which we live.

If, on the other hand, you believe we should be a strictly Christian nation with the resultant return to a Biblical world-view and values, then I think you should be honest and say as much. We who appreciate diversity would like to know your true goals.

The project of normalizing pedophilia is already under way. Besides the more subtle cultural shifts, some of the major milestones along this path are the radical reduction in the age of consent (already happening in many other countries),

I agree that our society is turning children into sex objects at younger and younger ages. But this is being driven by Madison Avenue, and not by some radical hidden homosexual agenda.

Also, please cite examples of "the radical reduction in the age of consent," specifically here in the US. I don't really care what they do in Sweden. I don't recall news stories of a rash of legislation allowing 37 year old men to marry 11 year old girls. Or boys, for that matter.

the bold and vocal existence of groups like NAMBLA (and that the ACLU will actually take up their cause),

"Bold and vocal?" Really? I can't remember the last time I had to walk through a crowd of NAMBLA members to get to my car at the mall, or the last time NAMBLA gathered at the courthouse to advocate more man/boy looove. I *do* remember a recent Klan gathering at our local courthouse. Is NAMBLA really more bold and vocal than the KKK? Or Fristian/DeLayite Religious Warriors? Personally, I don't think so. Tennesee may be different than other parts of the country, though.

and the legalization of "virtual" child pornography.

Again, Madison Avenue. Not Carson from "Queer Eye."

It should also be noted that in 1994 the American Psychiatric Association quietly revised its diagnostic manual to say that paraphilias (which include pedophilia) are not a perversion or disorder unless the person's behavior causes them distress or social impairment. In other words, it's only a problem if your conscience is bothered by it; if you are a sociopath then you're healthy!

Or maybe they are trying to suggest that as long as one doesn't act on the urge, one is "healthy." There are many urges or thoughts the average human being might have, some of which, if acted on, would be illegal.

Or perhaps you'd advocate the creation of a Biblical Thought Police, staffed entirely by those who are without sin and are therefore qualified to throw the first stone?
Hi SWMNT,

Thanks for taking the time to comment. Dissenting voices are always welcome and serve to take the discussion to a deeper level.

I'm preparing a reply, but have some time constraints just now. I'll try to get something out as soon as possible.
to SWMNT,

Welcome aboard. I'd like to take issue with your assertion that Paul isn't being honest about his agenda. Just take him at face value. You wouldn't want us assuming your real motives would you?

Paul doesn't seem to be linking homosexuality with pedophilia. What I see him doing is equating them philosophically. He's pointing out that many of the arguments used to support homosexuality as being worthy of respect as a valid lifestyle can also be used, if we are consistent in our logic, to support pedophilia or other things we all agree to be a perversion.

That's just a fact of logic. If you want to find a philosophical, moral argument to support the viability of homosexuality then it has to be one that doesn't fall prey to this mistake.

First, unless I miss my guess, you are linking homosexuality with pedophilia.

I think you may have misunderstood my line of argumentation. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I was not linking the two behaviorally or biologically, only linking the way each might argue for itself. For instance, they might both use the "I was born with it" argument, and if that argument, in-and-of itself sanctifies one then it sanctifies the other. I was merely demonstrating the inadequacy of that argument as a valid moral qualifier.

your argument could be used to affirm any sociopathic behavior.

I'm not attempting to affirm any particular behavior here. Perhaps this is just a further misunderstanding of my point.

One might ask if you're more bothered by the ickyness of gay sex than by the biblical injunction against it.

Maybe I am and maybe I'm not. However, this has no bearing on my argument, and I did not appeal to my "feelings" for my conclusion. How I or anyone else feels about homosexuality has no effect on its moral, psychological, or genetic standing. In fact, I could reference several persons with homosexual inclinations who would make similar arguments to mine, and I find certain things not "icky" that I am compelled to argue against.

I would suggest consensual gay sex is none of your business; particularly in the pluralistic society in which we live.

Perhaps I could suggest the same for prostitution, suicide, drug use, or consensual torture and cannibalism (which does exist). You will have to dig deeper than "consent" to justify homosexuality. And simply because our society is pluralistic no more makes diverse behavior right than saying that it's acceptable to own a batch of anthrax because we live in a biotech age.

If, on the other hand, you believe we should be a strictly Christian nation with the resultant return to a Biblical world-view and values, then I think you should be honest and say as much.

Where'd this come from? I am making strictly rational argument here, not a biblical argument (not that the Bible is irrational). For my biblical argument, go here. Please take my arguments on their own merit and in their own contexts.

As to returning to a "Christian nation," all I will say for now is that I agree with our nation's founders, who were probably better Christian men than I (on the whole). If they had wanted a theocracy, they would have set one up. I am reasonably happy with what they have established, as are the majority of those Christians I know. Your concern is not so much with what Christians want to do to this nation, but rather what they want to preserve in it. We are not the one's seeking the change. The burden of justifying change is on the backs of those who would seek it.

I agree that our society is turning children into sex objects at younger and younger ages. But this is being driven by Madison Avenue, and not by some radical hidden homosexual agenda.

I'm glad you too are concerned for our youth, but I wonder how far you would permit society to go in the effort to discourage their sexualization. Unfortunately, this would probably require us to infringe on some rights and freedoms.

I wonder why Madison Avenue would care so much about offending parents (the source of children's money) in order to sexualize their youth. Even if it were merely Madison Avenue responsible here, it may be argued that there are personal biases and agendas in those executives who are allowing things to turn in this direction versus some other equally profitable one. And that agenda is certainly not isolated to those individuals. Madison Avenue may simply be the most effective medium for instilling these new ideas and values into the culture.

Also, please cite examples of "the radical reduction in the age of consent," specifically here in the US. I don't really care what they do in Sweden. I don't recall news stories of a rash of legislation allowing 37 year old men to marry 11 year old girls. Or boys, for that matter.

You may be right that it is not an avalanche force assault, but it never is; social change happens inch by inch. And I think it is naïve to say that what happens in other countries does not affect us. Europe has a history of preceding the US in cultural conventions, just as California seems to precede the rest of the states.

Perhaps there are few people who are so reckless as to openly advocate relationships between the old and the very young (though there are some). However, there is an attempt to eliminate age of consent laws and to downplay the moral and psychological issues relating to sex with and between minors. Here are just a few examples:

[Regarding NAMBLA] "Bold and vocal?" Really? I can't remember the last time I had to walk through a crowd of NAMBLA members to get to my car at the mall, or the last time NAMBLA gathered at the courthouse to advocate more man/boy looove.

By "bold" I mean that they are not ashamed to make a public show of themselves, like laying out their position on a website or sponsoring court cases. And as for those homosexuals who do rally and march, it remains to be determined how many of these would support dropping the age of consent.

I *do* remember a recent Klan gathering at our local courthouse. Is NAMBLA really more bold and vocal than the KKK?

The KKK? Is that what you think representative of orthodox Christianity? I think you'll need to go back to the drawing board on this; the KKK is considered a radical organization even by the cults of Christianity. I have no duty to defend or make comparisons by them.

I am willing to consider that the majority of homosexuals might not have dark, strategic plans for the corruption of our youth (any more than all blacks are fans of Jesse Jackson), but, unfortunately, these are not the ones who are on the front lines advancing the liberal agenda. When you battle a nation you tend to confront its advancing army, not the quiet citizens on its home front.

[Regarding the APA recategorizing paraphilias] maybe they are trying to suggest that as long as one doesn't act on the urge, one is "healthy." There are many urges or thoughts the average human being might have, some of which, if acted on, would be illegal.

This would be a more desirable interpretation, but based on my reading of the material I don't think that is the best way to understand their position.

Or perhaps you'd advocate the creation of a Biblical Thought Police, staffed entirely by those who are without sin and are therefore qualified to throw the first stone?

Or perhaps we should have a thought police, such as in Canada, which prohibits the expression of the very opinions that Christians hold, and even threatens to regulate what may be preached from behind the closed doors of the church.

And are you implying that homosexuality is indeed a sin, but that we fellow sinners are morally unqualified to pass judgment? On that reckoning we might have basis for a discussion (but if you're going to quote my Scriptures to make your case you'll forgive me if I do likewise), however I don't think you've arrived there yet.
I've reread (perhaps more carefully) the original post. What I took away was that you are arguing that because homosexuality is most likely the product of a less than ideal childhood, that it is a dysfunction.

But there are many maladaptive traits or behaviors, some of which might be pathological, that we might obtain from our upbringing. Asthma. Substance abuse. Inability to form loving relationships. Lack of desire to strive and succeed. Some of these we apply moral judgments to. Some we don't. I don't go to hell for having asthma, but I do if I'm gay. I don't even know if I go to hell if I'm a practicing alcoholic. I certainly am not subject to the same kind of hatred and vitriol. Why is that? Childhood accidents can result in permanent disability, but we do not consign someone in a wheelchair to an eternity in Hell, even if they resist treatment.

So is homosexuality a pathology, a trait, or a behavior?

Finally, if homosexuality is a pathology, and caused by environmental factors, do we also hold the parents to account? Are they, also, to be consigned to hellfire and eternal torment?

Let me say, too, that I in no way intended to link Christianity with the KKK. My intent was to suggest that compared even to a marginalized and largely discredited group such as the Klan, NAMBLA is something less than a "bold and vocal group."
No one's 'condemned to hell' here. Perhaps you read that in to the post based on past experience.

Paul (my guess here) just wants to show that homosexuality is likely a pathology like the other ones you mentioned. And as such, the claim for protected minority status is invalid.

Equal protection under the law is to be expected. All citizens deserve to be protected from attack or mistreatment (just hoping to head off a misunderstanding there).
Anon (SWMNT),

Good comments! Very much in line with the discussion, and takes it to the next level, though Jeff's right that the hell/judgment aspect is a sidetrack. But I'm in the mood to bite.

Yes, I am saying that it is nature/design gone wrong. And yes, there are many other parallels. Some are directly analogous, like alcoholism or abusiveness, and some are not so directly parallel, like asthma. The distinction between the two is a matter of direct, unmediated, involuntary causality. For example, if a parent hit hist child in the head with a baseball bat he may well receive brain damage. There is a direct causal connection which the child had no hand in processing, reacting to, affirming, or reinforcing.

With alcoholism (assuming an environmental influence), the connection is not determinative, like the bat against the head. It is a matter of conditioning, which requires the child to respond to his upbringing in a way that does not guarantee the result of alcoholism. He could manage to rise above it, commit suicide, become a criminal, become homosexual, or become an alcoholic. And if he does become an alcoholic, it does not mean that beer gets into the car, goes to his house, and jumps into his mouth. There is volition involved, unlike brain damage. That is to say, the child cannot be mentally well most of the day and go out at night to indulge himself at the retard clubs. The mentally defective child does not have a desire to be brain damaged that he acts upon, rationalizes, surrenders to, or gets therapy for.

So, in some sense, we should be able to see a distinction between those problems for which we could find personal guilt and those for which the person is a wholly passive "victim." But the other problem is that nobody's on a crusade to normalize and celebrate things like brain damage and alcoholism (other than nutburgers like this). If it turns out that homosexuality is indeed a dysfunction, as it once was understood to be (having been declassified as a result of political pressure), then this would pull the rug out from under the gay advocates. And therein lies my main theme.

I (and I am not alone here as a Christian) am not suggesting that persons with this dysfunction are hell-bound simply because they have homosexual compulsions. We all have sinful compulsions for gosh sakes. I am suggesting that it is wrong to celebrate this dysfunction, to normalize it as just another valid (even "God-given") lifestyle, to shout down those who want out of it, and to encourage youth to explore this path if they feel so inclined. Indeed, this path is being paved and lighted for all those children who are sufferers of those environmental factors that may potentially develop into some sort of dysfunction. If we can first admit that it is a dysfunction, it seems that a number of conclusions and responses naturally follows from there. And that is exactly why such a conclusion is being fought so ferociously by the gay community, who seem to enjoy their dysfunction, just as many alcoholics do.

As far as parental culpability, if homosexuality is indeed a "sin," then we can at least say that God will debit the accounts of all those at fault, just as the law would hold me responsible if I strike my child with a baseball bat. In fact, Scripture does speak often about the impact of our misdeeds on others, and the guilt we incur in doing so. But as far as how being a participant in the product of sin relates to one's eternal destiny, the Christian answer is not that this or that particular sin disqualifies you from heaven. It all depends on whether or not you choose to stand on your own merits before God and be held accountable for ALL the crimes you have committed, or if you choose to throw yourself on the mercy of the court and accept the sin-payment that God is willing to provide for you through Christ.

As to NABLA vs. the KKK, I will concede some ground to you, though it does seem that the KKK has lost ground in society while NAMBLA is on the rise, and such trends play into my concerns.If we can first admit that it is a dysfunction, it seems that a number of conclusions and responses naturally follows from there. And that is exactly why such a conclusion is being fought so ferociously by the gay community, who seem to enjoy their dysfunction, just as many alcoholics do.

Hmmmm... I'm not ready to admit that homosexuality is a dysfunction. Which, I suspect, puts us at an impasse. Even if it is, I fail to see why it matters to the average person. It certainly doesn't matter to me that my coworker is gay. And it doesn't matter to me that my sibling is gay. Why is it important that homosexuality be defined a dysfunction? (Other than to deny committed homosexual couples rights, or status equal to marriage.)

(For my part, I'll do some research to see what I can find on the issue.)

As to NABLA vs. the KKK, I will concede some ground to you, though it does seem that the KKK has lost ground in society while NAMBLA is on the rise, and such trends play into my concerns.

On what basis do you assert NAMBLA is on the rise?
Paul, SWMNT, I hope you don't mind me jumping in here.

SWMNT said: Even if it is, I fail to see why it matters to the average person. It certainly doesn't matter to me that my coworker is gay. And it doesn't matter to me that my sibling is gay. Why is it important that homosexuality be defined a dysfunction?

Well, for those who believe in God it matters in that there are eternal consequences.But for those that don't, it would NOT matter UNLESS there are some damaging consequences.

It is my contention that there are damaging consequences to society as a whole, but perhaps more to the point, for those individuals involved in the behavior.

This is where I'll stop because I know that Paul has gone to great lengths in the past to detail the consequences and to support them with scientific studies.
I've read the Lifeways piece he wrote on "Is Homosexuality Compatible With Christianity?" Thanks.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. On all issues, possibly. Probably. Likely.
That article deals with the theology of the issue and I wouldn't expect you to appreciate it if you question the whole issue of the truthfulness of the Bible.

But the issue previously discussed was about the damaging affects of the homosexual lifestyle. Wouldn't that, if proven, make a difference in how you view it?

Oh, and I'm not so pessimistic about finding areas of agreement. I'm sure there are many.
I don't believe homosexuality or homosexual sex is neccessarily any more damaging than heterosexuality or hetersexual sex.
SWMNT: I'm not ready to admit that homosexuality is a dysfunction

I can appreciate that. No rush to conclusions for you. And my thinking can only get better on this the more I am challenged to develop it.

It does seem fairly warranted to believe that there is a strong environmental component, especially since all of the researchers seem to be admitting this themselves. And since most of the researchers appear to be gay-friendly (indeed, "proving" a biological link seems to be the motive for some), I am inclined to add weight to these kinds of concessions when they make them. It's one reason I respect the Big Bang theory: because even the atheistic scientists, who have nothing to gain by affirming an origin-event, finally cast their support for it.

I think the twin studies provide pretty concrete indicators that trump all the other technical and equivocal studies that some have attempted. And if the figures in the identical twins were anywhere close to 100%, then I'd be much more sympathetic to a determinative cause (though it could still be an environmentally determinative thing, I suppose). The fact that the numbers are even less than 50% for concordance in twins suggests a strong environmental influence in either its appearance or its suppression (the most robust study was the Australian one that showed 38% for men and 30% in women). The only question then is to determine what kind of "influence" is relevant to the appearance of homosexuality, and if those conditions would be considered positive or negative. If negative, then it would seem that we have a pathology (i.e., a "dysfunction"). Interestingly though, if positive, then we might say that homosexuality is a more "normal" or "healthy" product. I don't think we can go there, so the only other choice would seem to be socially/morally neutral environmental factors, like living in Ohio vs. Idaho, or growing up in a green room vs. a yellow one.

But it seems as though there is an allergy to exploring the environmental factors. Those who are not afraid to do so, and have worked with homosexual patients not particularly bent on justifying their preferences, seem to have discovered connections involving relationships with parents and guardians, relationships which are not ideal or are wholly absent during those formative years of development and gender development. And I have also noted the same in the case of every homosexual I have encountered; I have reason to believe they are on to something.

Here is an article that discusses the implications of the twin studies. I find this an interesting excerpt from that article:

"A fascinating sidelight on all this comes from the work of Bailey. His team asked non-concordant identical twins (one was homosexual, one not) about their early family environment, and found that the same family environment was experienced or perceived by the twins in quite different ways. These differences led later to homosexuality in one twin, but not in the other."

SWMNT: Even if it is, I fail to see why it matters to the average person. It certainly doesn't matter to me that my coworker is gay. And it doesn't matter to me that my sibling is gay. Why is it important that homosexuality be defined a dysfunction?

If it is a dysfunction, let us call it a dysfunction, and without all the politics. It might even foster more sympathy than hostility by those who have moral concerns with this condition. In fact, I have issues on the other end of the spectrum with Christians who still think of this as nothing more than a "choice." It may be helpful for all parties to understand all the complexities involved in this and why someone might end up going down this road.

As far as why I would care about this, well, first of all, I'd agree with Jeff that if this were really a problem in their relationship with God, then I would care by extension of my concern for others. If I really think life has eternal consequences, and I really care about others, then you should be able to follow the connection here.

But even if there were no moral/spiritual ramifications, we could still consider the immediate physical concerns. This lifestyle is not without its side effects and consequences — things that not only affect the homosexual but society itself. One might also ask why we should care about cigarette smokers, but society seems to care very much. If/since it is harmful, then we care about the participants, our youth who might be influenced to take this path, and the impact that it has on the culture-at-large, insurance rates, and healthcare costs. Basically, we care about this if we subscribe to the philosophy of "the public good," which is regularly applied in many other areas of society.

Here is a sampling of the kinds of things that are found in higher levels among the homosexual community:

Here are some articles that flesh out these talking points. Perhaps you will not like the sources, but they are at least heavily footnoted from secular journals: Here and hereHere is a list of other articles regarding homosexual health issues: NARTH

It is more difficult to find the same kinds of comprehensive articles on gay health issues from pro-homosexual sources (it's bad press that they'd prefer to avoid), but you can find them candidly discussing their woes here and there: Sample 1 and Sample 2

SWMNT: On what basis do you assert NAMBLA is on the rise?

This issue is ancillary to my case against homosexuality, so I am willing to set it aside. I'm not closely following all their present activities and the public acceptance and homosexual community support for this organization. My main concern is that organizations like this are part of the stream of our present cultural flow, which I make a brief supporting case for in my comment above on 12/21/05. The trend is toward the elimination of sexual constraints and taboos. This seems to me a reasonable observation.
Hello, I posted info with sources about lesbians...they were up briefly? Where did they go?
Anon, I see your comments in my email inbox, but I don't see them here either. I am largely in agreement with them, so I wouldn't have deleted them. I've not seen this happen before, but I've also not been very active on blogspot for awhile.

If you still have them, please repost them. Otherwise, I could copy them in here for you from my email.
Abiogenesis: Leftovers
I tried to put a table in this post, but it always wanted to put a ton of blank space in front of it (i.e., push it way down on the page). Only a basic HTML table that wasn't too wide. Anyone else ever have this problem on blogspot?
Abiogenesis: A Problem of Origins (part 3)
Those quotes are particularly compelling.

There's a peer reviewed secular scientific journal with an article from a pre-eminent scholar of this branch of science. And he's saying that he's clueless, and can't even conceive of a possible solution...

Yet we have supposedly objective scientists objecting vehemently against a statement being read to high school biology students stating simply that there are 'holes' in darwinian theories.

Think their objections are based on science? Not a chance.
Nice pun in your last sentence, Jeff. :)